The Right Scoop
Thank you for your insight Mr. Communist Agitator.
Please stay in California with the other fruits and nuts and SHUT UP.
For Van Jones and his crowd science is nothing - religion is everything. The religion of paganism mixed with marxism rooted in weak minds who are slaves to P.C. pressure. This generation's "useful idiots."
Some smart dude ay another blog coined the phrase fact-less science. I thought that Van Jones was just a feckless commie agitprop clown car salesman. But I like that bloggers thinking. It also fits Van Jones and his crowd to a "T".
By the way, there's an article at AT on the actual crowd numbers (oh duh). It seems that the enemedia overestimated the crowd size...again...It was more like 4,000 people. And many of them were old dried up hippies from the 60's.
lifesabench6@aol.com :-) I'll leave it up for a little while before editing. Let me know when you've got it.
100 years of oil in Canada ready to go and Russia/ China mouthpiece Jones can't let that happen because that would make both America and Canada stronger. He uses the word tar- sands which is false as tar is coal, the correct term is oilsands- Canada simply removes the oil from the sand- what a dirty sin! Arab oil billionaires are financeing these protests against this huge resourse because it will diminish OPEC's leverage. One last point to consider...OIL IS BIODEGRADEABLE ( to anyone who is still sane out there). Oh ya, excuse me there is another thing FROM science- many years ago the Arctic was semi tropical... and not a F-150 in sight.
A man like jones who has been detached from reality for most of his adult life - would view republicans detached from his reality.... The only claim that science/theory can make with some certainty is that the climate changes about every one hundred years..
All the other crap like the hockey stick etc. have been proven fantasy... Now those that believe in some form of a killer climate change or global warming or global cooling then do what YOU and your friends can do to help prevent it.. And leave the rest of the people the he!! alone... Also since your climate religion is a minority religion why don't you all put your money together and buy a climate safe space rocket and blast your a$$e$ off to some new planet!!!!!
Van Jones... I challenge you to a duel in Science. A TEAS V test... anywhere, anytime. Bring your brown britches buddy... you're going to need them.
Better yet... Nukeman... you challenge him, in which case, Van Jones is going to need to bring some nitroglycerin to slip under his tongue.
Well...let's see now...we have one party that "supposedly" does not believe in science....but I DO know for SURE that we have another party that does NOT understand MATH. It's not easy to collapse an economy unless you don't understand how 2 + 2 = 16.5 Trillion Dollars!
Van 'Projection-Reality Rejection' Jones.
That's the name of the game for leftists.
They call their opposition what they themselves are and do.
The truth is the direct opposite of what they say.
The left appeals to non-thinkers.
Leftist Voters are people whose brains are pickled with sound-bites and spin.
They live by their emotions, not logic, reason, data.
Not according to famed astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson:
Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?
Awful interviewer, didn't even challenge him. At least Dan Joeseph would have been funny and made him look foolish.
Van Jones is a communist pig. I'm stunned anybody listens to this miscreant, unless of course they are other communist pigs which, unfortunately, inhabit the White House as we speak.
Van Jones is a communist pig. I'm stunned anybody listens to this miscreant, unless of course they are other communist pigs which, unfortunately, inhabit the White House as we speak.
Hey Van you dumbass lefty/marxist/socialist mouthpiece, nobody gives a damn what you have to say, so why don't you STFU!
In case you all haven't noticed, I am a little MADDER than usual today!
No Mr.Commie.What we don't believe in is junk science and scientists trying to control our lives and steal our liberty!We are tired of others trying to tell us what is best for us!
Rememberer what the demo-craps think 'science' is. Whatever they say it is.
I have this conversation many times. People say since I'm conservative, I must therefore hate science. When I use scientific fact to torpedo 'global warming', they stick their fingers in their ears and cry "LA LA LA LA LA".
Liberalism, a disease where no truth gets through.
Sciency-ness and mathy-ness are what the leftists "believe" in. None of them can actually do much hard science or math. Especially math.
So has Mr. Jones and his fan club given up their automobiles, cell phones, iPhones, iPads, iPods, designer purses, houses, cooking apparatuses, and all other things that are made from petroleum or that require petroleum in the manufacturing process? What about those expensive clothes that took energy to manufacturer? Of course not.
Wait, he says Republicans don't believe in science yet he believes in Communism, green jobs, and global warming?!?!?!
If by "science" Van Jones means "political consensus", then yes, I'm guilty as charged. The problem is, he has no idea what science is. He thinks an opinion poll is the basis for science. If that were the case, we would still be living in the dark ages believing the sun orbits around the earth.
Philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) said the following:
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I believe the USA is currently in the "violently opposed" stage and people like Van Jones are the poster children for this. I don't think there's a single thing that this man says and/or believes that isn't in violent opposition to the REAL truth. His whole existence is based on falsehoods.
Van Jones actually stated that approving the KeyStone pipeline would be like "lighting a fuse on a carbon bomb. Certainly 96% of all scientist would disagree with this moronic comment by a socialist like Jones who is scientifically ignorant.
After all, he graduated from law school and didn't minor in any science degree just like Al Gore who majored in government. These are the carpetbaggers of the 20th and 21st centuries. They use fear to motivate the masses and fairy-tale science is their firearm of choice.
Well, see, it's just that carbon, like water, is highly explosive.
Especially if you can yell "BOOM!" really loudly after lighting the fuse.
How the hell do you become anti-science and then at the same time support oil and natural gas, which need science to extract?
Sigh.
Can you say ching ching $$$$$ thats what this BS is all about atleast for the politicians up in the WH, But science needs to be included with this pipelines building....
Van Jones is wrong, of course, but he is just articulating the perception that people have towards the Right's penchant for medievalist views, especially amongst the religious Right. I myself get very frustrated with the Right's frequent reliance on faith, rather than reason, and religion, rather than science. It's often like talking to people from the middle ages, rather than the people from the 21st century. A lot of rational people are driven to the Left, simply because they're disgusted by all the medievalist views on the Right. The Left is able to offer themselves as the "modern", "progressive" and "pro-reason" alternative to the Right's obsession with medievalism. Those rational people should be on the Right, fighting for the cause of liberty, but all of this medievalist crap has pushed them straight into Obama's lap. All of this gives the Left a narrative to play with; a narrative in which the Right is seen as "anti-science", "anti-modernity", "regressive", "irrational" and "anti-reason".
It's very hard to argue that reason is on the side of liberty when, for instance, liberty's defenders on the Right can't even explain the existence of unalienable individual rights without calling them "God given". How does the Right expect any rationally-minded individual to accept the validity of unalienable individual rights, if they're based on "faith" in supernatural entities that nobody can perceive nor prove the existence of. That's not exactly a persuasive argument. All it will do is make those rationally-minded individuals think that there is no such thing as unalienable individual rights, and that therefore the only source of rights is the government, thus making them statists.
Personally, I want all this medievalism taken out of politics. We're not a bloody theocracy, for crying out loud.
Interesting post. I agree with you partially but from my experience, liberals / progressives / statists / democrats / etc. rely more on EMOTION (i.e. jealousy towards the rich, class warfare, etc.) when most people I talk to who are TRUE conservatives / libertarians / etc. who rely on FACT.
A good example of this is the negative effect of the minimum wage laws on young black males, lower skilled workers, etc. Yet, liberals / progressives / statists / democrats / etc. push for higher minimum wages and claim things like:
"It's a fairness issue!" spoken by the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
We TRUE conservatives and libertarians know that the FACTS say that every time the minimum wage rate goes up, unemployment especially among young black males goes up to match so the policy has the opposite effect to what it was intended to do. But, again based on emotion and not facts, liberals / progresives / statists / democrats / etc. never talk about that.
I fully acknowledge that the Right is more cognitive in their thinking, whereas the Left is more emotional, but the issue is with the perception that people have towards the Right, as a consequence of the Right's penchant for medievalist thinking. That's not to say that all on the Right are like that, but whenever people hear the Right speak on issues, it's almost always God this, God that, Faith this, Faith that - Rational people don't want to hear that crap. This is the 21st century, not the middle ages. We're supposed to have had a renaissance that did away with the dominance of mysticism and faith, and opened up the doors to objective reality and reason. Religion was supposed to have become a personal and private affair, not go back to being the basis for politics and the Right's intellectual arguments.
One of the things that frustrates me so much is that the Right has perfectly rational and good secular arguments for why Man has individual rights, for why Capitalism and a Free Market is the ideal system, and for why all forms of tyranny are immoral - Yet all we hear from the Right, at least the most vocal voice, is that all of these things are based on "Faith in God". It's no bloody wonder that the Left is able to get away with conning people into thinking that they're the rational, secular and intellectual alternative, like Van Jones is articulating the perception of.
We don't need any more of the Right's witch doctors defending liberty. We need a pro-reality, pro-reason, pro-rationality and pro-science defense of liberty. Secular voices on the Right should be the dominant ones. If you want to practice religion, then go do it on a personal/private level, but don't interject it into politics, and don't come out with this codswallop about how all our intellectual justifications for liberty are based on "Faith in God". For all the good it does us, they might as well say that our intellectual arguments are based on ghosts, fairies, unicorns and other fairy tales.
The great minds on the Right did NOT exert all their intellectual effort to provide pro-reality and pro-reason arguments for liberty, just so that religious Conservatives could sabotage all their work by basing everything on bloody fairy tales.
Nothing medieval about Christians in 2013. Nothing rational or reasonable about atheism in any period.
Excuse me, gotta go order a guy to drive my favorite oxcart through a gauntlet of cart washers and ox groomers before I check on my other serfs. Then I'm gonna pick up another 40 round magazine for my crossbow and see if the Cathedral up the road will let me sneak a peak at their Vulgate.
I was out checking out new ox-carts at the dealer the other day, lotsa shillings for a new one. Then I stopped in & picked a couple boxes of .00 tipped arrows for my crossbow. :)
I was out checking out new ox-carts at the dealer the other day, lotsa shillings for a new one. Then I stopped in & picked a couple boxes of .00 tipped arrows for my crossbow. :)
It comes across as that. When I listen to it, read it, or watch it, that is the sense that I get from it, and I don't think I'm alone in that. I think a great many people sense it too. The only way I can describe it is medievalism, because it's pre-Rennaisance; it's straight out of the dark ages. It both frustrates me and scares the crap out of me because if these are our largest group who are defending liberty, then liberty has a shockingly poor defense.
That's the most honest explanation I can give you for it.
Oh I get all of that, Kordane, but I prefer people bring something to the effort themselves.
Back when they came up with that phrase, "our Creator" they were giving the atheists of the day a little acknowledgement. A chance to see that they are included in this concept of sovereignty of the individual.
I think your problem has a lot more to do with our current crop of political leaders, and not the use of that phrase.
If I've learned anything over the decades of studying rhetoric, legal formulations, and the ramblings of philosophers, it's that the surest way to diminish and dilute a principle, rule, or standard is to use too many words.
Seen against the florid writing of the day, the Declaration's preamble and the entire Constitution are an amazingly economical use of words.
I say that "our creator" is reality/nature, and that unalienable individual right are necessitated by our nature as rational beings.
Sure, that's a little bit tougher to explain than if you just say "God did it. Have faith."
But if you do base them on religion, then you're only ever going to attract religious people. You alienate all atheists and agnostics, and people who say they're religious but then don't go to church, don't pray and don't read the bible. That's a LOT of people right there, instantly alienated and pushed to the alternative, which the Left are all too happy to offer.
Contrast how the Left views Rights. They think that Rights are granted and may be revoked by government. This argument at least has the benefit of it being perceivable (unlike God, which isn't perceivable), since government is seen giving special Rights ("privileges" to me & you) to certain groups of people, and so it's very easy for people (especially non-religious or less-religious people) to accept that view. You don't need to "have faith" in some fairy tale supernatural being; you can just see the government doing these things, very easily.
This is why I think that we have to do our best to give those "dry philosophy" explanations for the basis of unalienable individual rights (and other aspects of individual liberty). We have to present ourselves as being the opposite of what Van Jones portrays us as, no matter how hard it is to explain our ideas, otherwise the cause of liberty is doomed. There are some great voices on the Right that explain all that "dry philosophy" stuff in simple analogies, explanations and examples. Look at the great work that Milton Friedman did. Look at the great work Ayn Rand did ("Atlas Shrugged" being an example of how you can present Objectivism without it being too complicated). Look at the great work that Friedrich Hayek did with his "Road to Serfdom".
There needs to be a fundamental change on the Right, more towards rational, pro-reality, pro-reason explanations/justifications for the cause of liberty -- and less towards all the religious medievalist stuff. Van Jones is telling you what you're doing wrong, without even realizing that he's doing that.
I know from my own personal life that I have friends who went Liberal because of all the religiosity and medievalism on the Right - It disgusted them on an intellectual level. One such friend is now an Objectivist (thanks to my efforts), but the others remain ardent statists. I can't even talk to them about politics because they're so far gone now.
The problem is, if we try to describe unalienable rights without resorting to "Our Creator" (which was artfully done on purpose, by men who had this same discussion), then we have to squeeze people's minds through several volumes of dry philosophy, for which only geeks like you and me would ever have the stomach.
Philosophy has to be accessible, which is probably why Nick Gillespie always wears a black leather jacket. But making it accessible requires letting go of a lot of detail.
Sort of like telling people gasoline is a fuel because it burns so well, and not going into the fantastic world of hydrocarbon cracking, and the differences between petrol, jet, and diesel.
What Mr. Jones doesn't understand is that the OIL WILL BE COMING TO THE U.S.A. ANYWAY.
Based on what I've read, if the pipeline isn't built, the oil will come to the refineries in the south via railroad. Statistically, I have to believe there's more of a chance for an environmental disaster with the oil in train cars than in a pipeline, never mind the carbon footprint of the locomotives bringing the trainloads to the refineries.
Also, the railroad that most likely will transport the oil is the BNSF railroad that is owned by Warren Buffett, a big supporter of the democrats and Obama. So it also smells of a political payback.
It is very hard to accept the "burning up the planet" rhetoric, when it is obviously quite cold.
Van can't even get his BS straight.
When quoting made up statistics 97% is the accepted quota that makes your viewpoint correct and PC, not 96 %. Look it up /
Hey Van, here's a little science for ya: Human life begins at conception and if allowed to continue the human life cycle those 'fetuses' are each a unique individual in the early stages of that human life cycle.
Now tell me again who don't believe in science, aszhole.
I believe in science and genetic dispositions that can cause stupidity and the inability to formulate intelligent comments and for my first example I will use you.
Oh Vanny Boy!
What's in that pipe you're smoking?
You're spreading lies, mistruths and plain bulls#!t!
We all see it, the lies are so apparent!
So shut your mouth!
And please just go away!
And don't come back!
We don't want to see yooou!
We've had enough of all your BS carp!
(To the tune of O Danny Boy)
If I were Irish, I'd grab a pint and start crying while we sing along.
Since I'm not, I'll just have the pint.
Just in case you would like to have some melody to go with they lyrics...LOL.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=852gverKRPo&list=AL94UKMTqg-9DP111COIOilagJdzT0kQ8i
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.